^{page 27 note 1} Cf. the list in Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St Mark (London, 1955), pp. 126–7. Some of Taylor's agreements I here attribute to joint use by Paul and Mark of specific catechetical or Q materials. In agreements of this sort it is irrelevant if Matthew andlor Luke copy the word out of Mark, provided they do not use it in their own writing. Hence add to Taylor's list the following. άκυρóω Mark vii. 13, Gal. iii. 17. άσúνετος vii. 18; Paul (3). άχεıροποιητος xiv. 58, II Cor. v. I (whole context), Col. ii. 11. σπóρος iv. 26–7 (= Luke viii. 5, 11), II Cor. ix. 10. συναποθνήσκω xiv. 31, II Cor. vii. 3, II Tim. ii. II. σωфρονέω v. 15; Paul (3), I Pet. iv. 7. πıστεúετε έν τῷ εúαγγελıον…έν και πıστεúαντες Eph. i. 13 only (cf. Rom. i. 16; I Cor. xv. 2; Acts xv. 7).Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} Typical Epistolary words introduced by Luke into several different Synoptic strata: , έπέρχομαıαı, έфιστημι, . For the word-lists cf. J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2nd ed., Oxford, 1909), pp. 190–2.

^{page 27 note 3} Luke xxi. 5–36 (as I hope to show elsewhere) largely replaces Mark xiii with an Epistolary-style Apocalypse—both of which in turn are developed out of a small Q nucleus. Cf. also the story of Mary and Martha (Luke x. 38–42) with Paul's approval of celibacy (I Cor. vii. 32–5). Paul's aim is τò…έúπάρεδρον νῷ κυριῳ άπερισπάστως: Mary ‘sits at the feet of the Lord’, but Martha is ‘distracted’ (περıεσπᾶτο). The married person in Paul μερıμνᾷ τá τσῦ kgr;óσμου; Jesus says of Martha, μερıμνᾷς…πολλά (om. D it sy*). Resch (op. cit. note 6, p. 28 below, Untersuchung 54) thought Paul was quoting the Synoptic tradition; rather Luke dramatizes an Epistolary motif.

^{page 27 note 4} But I find no significant agreement between the Epistles and the final editor of Matthew—partly because I minimize his work, cf. note 4, p. 28 below.

^{page 27 note 5} The Last Supper (I Cor. xi. 23–5); ‘Render to Caesar’ (Rom. xiii. 7; cf. Topic no. 5 below); the great commandment (Gal. v. 14 = Rom. xiii. 8–10). I cannot say if there is any significance to the parallel ó γάρ πάς νóμος…πεπλήρωταı (Gal. v. 14), τóν νóμον…πληρῶσαı (Matt. v. 17, Q context).

^{page 27 note 6} Cf. Paul on the ‘fulness of time’ (Gal. iv. 4–7; cf. Rom. viii. 17; Heb. i. 1–2), beside the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mark xii. 1–12). I believe Paul does not know the parable, but rather that Mark edited it with Pauline motifs and vocabulary.

^{page 27 note 7} Cases where the Matthaean parallel seems to prove that Luke has introduced Epistolary vocabulary into Q: ᾶηλος (Luke xi. 44 ); ᾶфρων (xi. 40); βασιλεıος (vii. 25); δıαγγέλλω (ix. 60); (vii. 25); έπέρχομαı (xi. 22); εúγενής (xix. 12); σκοπέω (xi. 35).

^{page 28 note 1} Cases where Mark has introduced Epistolary vocabulary (from unrelated contexts) into his version of Q materials: άμάρτημα (iii. 28–9); άπóκρυфος (iv. 22); άποπλανάω (xiii. 22); ᾶρχω active (Mark x. 42, Rom. xv. 12 LXX); θανατóω (xiii. 12); κατακυρıεεúω (x. 42), the text of Acts xix. 16 being uncertain.

^{page 28 note 2} I resist a conclusion which might be drawn from some of the parallels displayed below: ‘The Epistles truly echo Q, and Luke in turn edits Q with the vocabulary of those Epistolary reminiscences of the very same Q passages.’ For Luke can be shown not to edit Q with Epistolary ideas. Many of the displayed parallels below in fact consist of a word confined to Paul and one of the Synoptics; I have not usually pointed this out, since it can easily be discovered from the Concordance, and the parallelism rests on the stronger evidence of context.

^{page 28 note 3} Taylor, V., ‘The Original Order of Q’, New Testament Essays (Studies in memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1893–1958), ed. Higgins, A. J. B. (Manchester, 1959), pp. 246–69.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 4} ‘The Form of “Q” Known to Matthew’, N.T.S. VIII (1961/1962), 27–42.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 5} ‘Mark as Witness to an Edited Form of Q’, J.B.L. LXXX (1961), 29–44.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 6} Resch, A., Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältnis untersucht (Leipzig, 1904): T.U. Band XII, n.F.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 7} Carrington, P., The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles (Cambridge, 1940).Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 8} Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St Peter (2nd ed., London, 1947), pp. 363–466.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} Grant, F. C., The Earliest Gospel (New York, 1943), p. 206.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} (a) ‘Serving two masters’ (Matt. vi. 24): Paul may echo this at I Thess. i. 9; I Cor. viii. 4–5; x. 19–21; II Cor. vi. 14–16; Rom. vi. 16–18. (b) Jesus' thanksgiving (Matt. xi. 25–30). The Q part of this finds a parallel at I Cor. i–iii passim; Gal. i. 15–16. This may be a late addition to Greek Q, since there are no Aramaic translation-variants; can it have been created out of the Pauline theme? At any rate Matthew's continuation ειμı και ταπεıνóς (Matt. xi. 29) seems a reminiscence of ταπεıνοфροσúνης και (Eph. iv. 2; cf. Col. iii. 12; Phil. iv. 11–12).

^{page 30 note 1} Nauck, W., ‘Freude im Leiden: Zum Problem einer urchristlichen Verfolgungstradition’, Z.N.T.W. XLVI (1955), 68–80. Nauck believes that both Epistles and Gospels are adapting a pre-Christian theme of Maccabean origin.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 2} II Thess. i.3–5 = I Thess. i. 6; Jas. i. 3 = I Pet. i. 7 (τó delta;οκιμıον úmgr;ῶν τῆς πιστεως); II Cor. i. 4 and x. 15 (different letters?); Phil. i. 5–7 (prison); Col. i. 11, 24; Ignatius.

^{page 31 note 1} There may be echoes of the other original or secondary Reatitudes at Jas. ii. 5; iv. 8–9; Heb. xii. 14; I John iii. 2–3.

^{page 33 note 1} Cullmann, O., The State in the New Testament (New York, 1956), pp. 95–114. I suppose that Luke xii. 11 (text above) is the origin of ‘principalities and powers’ in the N.T. Here the primary meaning is political, as also apparently in Rom. xiii. 1; Tit. iii. 1; Polyc. xii. 3 (cf. Luke xx. 20). Titus and I Peter seem variants of the same tradition: then we should have άρχαι = βασıλεúς (i.e. the Emperor?), έξουσ│αı = ήγεμóνες. These equations are verified by the parallel between Luke xii. II and Mark xiii. 9 έπ│ ήγεμóνων κα│ βασıλέων σταθήσεσθε. It seems these must be Aramaic translation-variants. But the Imperium Romanum was felt to be a demonic power; and ‘principalities and powers’ could naturally lead away from politics to angelology. However, even in Paul the Principalities ‘crucified the Lord’ (I Cor. ii. 8) and are ‘triumphed’ over (Col. ii. 15); he has not lost the original meaning. Cf. further no. 13 below.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} The agreement τά úπάρχουτα (Luke xii. 33 = Matt. xix. 21) shows Matthew inserting an original Q phrase into a Marcan parallel to Q. In the original order of Q it made a catchword connexion with το│ς úπάρουıν Luke xii. 44 = Matt. xxiv. 47. (So did δıορúσσω at Matt. vi. 19 (ctr. Luke xii. 33) with Luke xii. 39 = Matt. xxiv. 43.)

^{page 36 note 1} Other features of Matthew/Mark here seem borrowed from unrelated Pauline contexts. (a) Matt. vi. 31–3, ‘What shall we eat or drink?…but seek first his kingdom and righteousness’. Cf. Rom. xiv. 17, ‘For the Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness’; x. 3 ‘ignoring the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own’. (b) With Mark x. 30 (above) cf. Rom. viii. 18 (and I Pet. v. I), ‘the sufferings of this time (καıροῦ) are not fit to be compared with the coming glory’.

^{page 36 note 2} Jas. iii. 12, ‘Surely the fig-tree cannot produce olives, or the vine figs’. A reference to the ‘figs and thistles’ of Q (Matt. vii. 16). M. H. Shepherd, Jr., ‘The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew’, J.B.L. LXXV (1956), 40–51, thinks James knew our Matthew. But the parallels are all to Q and ‘M’ sayings (i.e. I suppose, to the form of Q known to Matthew); and sometimes in an earlier form than Matthew's (no. 4 above).

^{page 37 note 1} The Q contrast hearing/doing (Matt. vii. 24 = Luke vi. 47) is echoed at Rom. ii. 13; Jas. i. 23–5; and John xiii. 17, ‘If you know these things, you are blessed (Jas. i. 25) if you do them’. John knows some of Matthew's reordering of Q: Servant and master John xiii. 16 Matt. x. 24 Luke vi. 40 Hearing and doing xiii. 17 vii. 24 vi. 47 Receiving Apostle (no. 15) xiii. 20 x. 40 x. 16.

^{page 37 note 2} τῆς τροфῆς ℵ*

^{page 37 note 3} πάντα τά παρατıθέμενα A; assimilation to Luke.

^{page 37 note 4} Cf. Matt. xi. 1, ‘When Jesus finished commanding…’.

^{page 38 note 1} Didache xi. 6 lets the Apostle accept bread but not money; Did. xiii. I quotes Q ‘worthy of his food’ like Matthew.

^{page 38 note 2} I have omitted the parallel Eph. vi. 19 ‘so that a word may be given me in the opening of my mouth’; Luke xxi. 15 ‘For I will give you a mouth and wisdom’. Luke's Q-form of the saying is xii. 12; xxi. 15 (cf. note 3, p. 27 above) is part of his ‘Epistolary’ Apocalypse. Here exceptionally the two members of a Lucan doublet come, one from Q, one from Mark plus the catechism.

^{page 38 note 3} Is it fanciful to see a hint that we put on the ‘panoply’ which has been taken away from the evil power(s), Col. ii. 14 and Luke xi. 22? Paul here and at I Thess. v. 8; Rom. xiii. 12 is (like Wisdom v. 17–19) adapting the description of God's armour at Isa. lix. 17.

^{page 38 note 4} Punctuation uncertain. At Mark xiii. 9 we might have expected παραδώσουσıν…ένεκεν τɛúεúαγγελ│ου parallel to viii. 35; x. 29. Perhaps it stood so in Mark's source. Then cf. Eph. vi. 19–20 τó μυστή│ον τοῦ εúαγγελ│ου, úπέρ πρεσβεúω έν άλúσεı.

^{page 39 note 1} Munck, J., Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte (Copenhagen, 1954).Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} A similar development at Rom. vi. 2–9.

^{page 40 note 1} The saying about άντάλλαγμα at Mark viii. 37 might be an echo of Paul's καταλλαγή in this context (e.g. Rom. xi. 15; Col. i. 20).

^{page 40 note 2} II Tim. ii. 11–12 has three ‘faithful sayings’(is πıστóς ó λóγος derived from άμήνλέγω?): ‘If we die with him, we shall also live with him (cf. Matt. x. 39); if we endure, we shall reign with him (cf. Matt. x. 22); if we deny (άρνησóμεθα), he also will deny us (Matt. x. 33)’. Behind this apparently lies Matthew's unoriginal grouping of Q sayings.

^{page 40 note 3} Luke x. 16 (Q) has ó άθετῶν but a different parallelism; Matt. x. 40 diverges yet more widely.

^{page 41 note 1} ‘With Rom. viii. 31 ε│ ó θεóς úπέρ τ│ς καθ' ήμῶν; cf. Mark ix. 40 őς γάρ οúκ έστıν καθ' ήμῶν υπέρ ήμῶν έστıν.

^{page 41 note 2} Luke xii. 1, ‘the leaven, i.e. hypocrisy, of the Pharisees’, is editorial use of Mark, not original Q.

^{page 43 note 1} John xii. 34, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up (úψωθῆναı)’ may be another echo of Q. Here again John has secondary order: Save one's life (no. 14) John xii. 25 Matt. x. 39 Mark viii. 35 Luke xvii. 33 My minister 26 xxiii. 11 ix. 35 xxii. 27 Lifted up 34 12 — xiv. 11 Him that sent me (no. 15) 44 x. 40 ix. 37 x.16.

^{page 43 note 2} Mark is not an imitation of the Epistles, for there are Aramaic translation-variants, Mark's ‘son of man’ and Timothy's ‘man’ can both represent bar-enash. could be either ‘his soul’ or ‘himself’. In the Syriac Gospels, both άντ│ Mark x. 45 and úπέρ Mark xiv.24 are translated by .

^{page 44 note 1} J.B.L. LXXX, 39 note 24. Cf. further the non-technical use of βαπτıσμοúς (Mark vii. 4), έβαπτıσθη (Luke xi. 38).

^{page 44 note 2} Cf. Acts x. 15, ‘What God has cleaned, do not call unclean (μή κοıνου)’. Luke omits Mark vii. 14–23, but gives the same materials in the Cornelius-story; did the historian see that the necessity of Peter's dream proved the Marcan saying unauthentic?

^{page 44 note 3} Matthew's source ascribes John's words to Jesus. So at Matt. xxiii. 33 after ‘generation of vipers’ we would have expected άπó τῆς μελλοúσης óργῆς (= Matt. iii. 7). Cf. I Thess. i. 10 έκ τῆςóργῆς τῆς έρχομένης.

^{page 44 note 4} With I Cor. i. 22, ‘The Jews ask for signs’, cf. the unoriginal Pharisees of the sign-controversy, Matt. xii. 38 = Mark viii. 11. So Tit. i. 14 (no. 20 above) has ‘Jewish myths’, with which cf. Mark vii. 3 ‘the Pharisees and all the Jews’. In Matthew all opponents become Pharisees; in Paul and John, Jews; Mark is intermediate.

^{page 44 note 5} Anti-Jewish polemic also at Acts xx. 19 (no. 12 above). Acts vii. 52 (Stephen's speech): ‘Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who predicted the coming of the righteous one, of whom you were betrayers and murderers.’ The agreement with I Thessalonians suggests that Luke really is using an early source. Cf. Matt. xxiii. 35, ‘so that there may come on you all the righteous blood’. At Acts xxiii.3 Paul calls the high priest τοίχε κεκονıαμένε; either Paul or Luke knew the original form of Q at Matt. xxiii. 27 τάфοı κεκονıαμένοıς.

^{page 45 note 1} A word difficult to pronounce in the state it denotes, as Professor F. C. Grant once pointed out.

^{page 45 note 2} The περı δέ, as in I Cor. passim, seems a fossil of Epistolary style in Mark. Cf. Acts i. 7.

^{page 45 note 3} Cf. I Thess. iv. 2–4: ‘For you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus…to abstain from fornication, that each of you should know how to keep his own vessel (σκεῦος) in sanctification and honour.’ What saying can have been so interpreted? Is this perhaps (like Mark vii. 14ff., no. 20) a version of the Q cup-parable (Matt. xxiii. 25–6)?

^{page 46 note 1} Mark edits Q with Thessalonian apocalyptic. With Mark viii. 38 ‘when he comes in the glory of his father with the holy angels’, cf. I Thess. iii. 13 ‘before God, even our Father, in the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his holy ones’. With Mark ix. 1, ‘the Kingdom of God come in power’, cf. II Thess. i. 7 ‘from heaven with the angels of his power’, I Cor. iv. 20 ‘the Kingdom of God is not in word but in power’.

^{page 47 note 1} With the list of giftsat I Cor. xii. 28 προфήτας…δıδασκάλους…δυνάμεıς, χαρ│σματα│αμάτων, cf. Matt. vii. 22 έπροфητεúσαμεν…δαıμóνıα έξεβάλομεν…δυνάμεıς πολλάς έποıήσαμεν, 26 έδ│δαξας. Matthew in effect under Pauline influence makes Jesus deprecate the whole list of Apostolic gifts. With I Cor. xii. 31 ‘a better way’ cf.Matt.vii. 14 ‘the way leading to life’. (I Tim.vi. 12 = II Tim.iv. 7) echoes Luke xiii. 24 ‘strive () to enter through the narrow door’. The agon again at Phil. i. 28–30, where cf. the contrast άπωλε│ας/σωτηρ│ας (Matt. vii. 13, Luke xiii. 23).

^{page 47 note 2} Further, I Thess. v. 21 πάντα δέ , τó καλóν κατέχετε may be Paul's version of the one presumably genuine agraphon, λ│νεσθε δέ δóκıμοι τραπεʒīται. I suggest that it stood in Q^mt, was deleted by the final editor of Matthew, but continued to influence the tradition. Cf. on Matt. xxv. 14–30 in Huck's Synopsis; J. Jeremias, Unbekannte Jesusworte (Zürich, 1948), pp. 76–8.